How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Obama True to Form   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Obama True to Form

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


25 posted 05-09-2009 10:46 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          I checked out the source you list in your initial post.  That would be the source with the ad posted next to it for conservative T-shirts making comments about socialists.  The source would be more creditable for me if it was proof read.  

     The headline reads:

quote:


Obama to Cut Slain Officer's Benefits in Half -- Where's Media Outrage?




     The statement, as you can see, is one which either states, on purpose, that there is a particular officer ó slain officer, mind you ó whose justified benefits for his family are in danger of being cut; or which says so through journalistic incompetence.  As one reads into the article, it turns out that there is no officer specifically being spoken about.  It turns out that that being slain in the line of duty is a half-truth that instead should speak about officers who die while on duty ó still deserving folk, mind you, but not officers being murdered by criminals as the article allows us to think, but also officers who have died to industrial accident and the natural hazards of a dangerous job.

     In fact, what the accurate statement would be is that the general fund from which the Federal government contributes to these officer's benefits is  being cut.  There are questions however that are not addressed in the article.  

     The article mentions, for example, a figure of 21%.  It says that the number of police deaths has increased this year by that amount over last year.  They do not say if this figure is an increase of 21% over the total number of deaths for all of 2008 or of some point thus far in the year.  They are in fact quite careless with the way they chuck the number around.  They are not terribly clear where the number comes from, how the computation was done and how it was arrived at.  Given their carelessness with their presentation, one should not be surprised.

     Nor does the article state what percentage of the benefits come from the police officer's union funds, what percentage may come from city funds and what may come from state funds.  Nor do they address if there has been any contribution from these sources in the past.  They act as if the sole source of the funding is from federal sources.  One would need to see this addressed before wanting to express the sort of outrage that various folks have felt free to express here, simply in order to make sure that one is not being mislead by a grotesquely ill written and biased news source.

     I'd like to know what unbiased sources Mike or Denise might suggest I use to find out these facts.  Sources as apparently misleading as this don't seem to provide much but confusion and misdirection as far as I can tell.  I would suspect that the media outrage would eventually follow on the believe that the media has believable facts to deal with.  They have been wrong before, of course, and will be again, for all sorts of reasons, good and bad; but they do like to point to things that they think of as being facts as justification for what they're saying, even when they're about weapons of mass destruction that aren't there.

     I simply think that this publication is doing more than trying to continue to stir up ill will about Obama at this point.  If Obama was going to try to withhold money from police or firefighters who were hurt on the job, even I'd be against him, and almost every other liberal I know.  I'm cautious about my civil rights; that doesn't mean I dislike police or that I want anything but safe and secure lives for them.  They want their civil rights, too, I've noticed; and for the most part, they're not all that thrilled about the number of guns on the street either.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


26 posted 05-09-2009 11:09 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

He's just playing political games, Grinch, in order to appear fiscally responsible to the public in hopes of gaining their support. His latest budget proposal is just his initial budget proposal repackaged, and stands at .1 trillion more than the one Congress just approved. Most of his so-called new cuts were already 'cuts' in his initial proposal.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/05/budgets_mirrors_and_the_media.html
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


27 posted 05-10-2009 06:58 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
He's just playing political games, Grinch, in order to appear fiscally responsible to the public in hopes of gaining their support.


Denise,

Are you saying that reducing the budgetary allocation for this fund, that is twice the amount necessary to meet all claims, isnít fiscally responsible?

This thread, and the original article produced as evidence, contains three accusations that you and Mike now seem reluctant to address.

1 That the Administration is planning to reduce the benefits paid to public service officers.
2 That the media should be outraged by the budget reduction.
3 That officers wonít be paid if the fund goes over budget?


Failing to verify those accusations, or ignoring the evidence entirely, is a neat trick, itís allowed Mike to make additional accusations. He says it proves that Obama and the media are despicable, that heís disappointed that Ron has offered a reply that is beneath him and that Iíve spun the facts. The validity of all these accusations is dependant on the truth-value of the original accusations. If the article is correct all the accusations are valid.

I donít think any of them are valid, nor it seems does Ron, or Bob.

What do you think Denise, Mike? Are any of the accusations valid?

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


28 posted 05-10-2009 08:50 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

No, it doesn't make him fiscally responsible, Grinch, because it doesn't necessarily change anything concerning spending if the budgeted amount is not exceeded in the coming year, or if he 'finds the money somewhere else' if it is needed due to an increase of injury/death over what the administration is projecting which, as Mike has shown, the cases are on the rise this year, not declining.

He is giving the impression that he is cutting, when it fact, at best, it's a zero sum game, and at worst he is cutting something that shouldn't be cut if additional funds are needed above what is being allocated and he somehow 'can't find' the additional funds if needed. In that event benefits will be cut to
injuried/slain officers and their families and the fears expressed in the original article will be realized.

And If he did all this so-called budget cutting this week, with fanfare, why is his end product .1 trillion higher than what Congress just passed the other day? Shouldn't budget cuts lower the total budgeted amount, not increase it? Or is Washington math different than regular math? I guess it might be considering their definition of a budget cut is different from the average folks understanding, which generally leads to actually cutting spending if necessary, or moving things around in a budget from one item to another, spending a little more here, a little less there, if need be. But what you don't do is go over the budgeted amount overall without rendering your budget meaningless.

The bottom line is that he hasn't cut the budget, but rather increased it, making people think he has decreased it. He didn't base his budget cuts on the one that Congress just passed, as was the impression he gave by announcing his cuts just after congress passed the budget, but simply trotted out his original plan that already had those 'cuts' in it, (but was still .1 trillion higher than the congressional plan), all for the sake of press coverage touting him as fiscally responsible.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


29 posted 05-10-2009 09:12 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Mike hasnít shown that the claims are increasing Denise, heís shown that one group out of several eligible to claim, police officers, have had an increase in deaths while on duty.

If you do a little research instead of looking at one particular subset of possible claimants youíll find that total claims are almost exactly the same as last year despite the increase in police deaths.

You keep mentioning Obamaís claim that heís reduced actual spending on these benefits but donít seem to be able to supply any evidence. As far as I can see heís claimed to have reduced the budget to match the expected spend which is, despite your claims to the contrary, a fiscally responsible thing to do.

Btw, have you had a chance to look at the questions I posed regarding the accusations in the article and their validity?

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


30 posted 05-10-2009 10:34 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

No, what I said, Grinch, is that he has reduced the budgeted amount for that program, not actual spending. Not yet, anyway. He very well may if funds aren't available and need exceeds the budget. Regardless, he isn't saving any money, despite the attempt at portraying that he is.

As to your questions:
quote:

1 That the Administration is planning to reduce the benefits paid to public service officers.

2 That the media should be outraged by the budget reduction.

3 That officers wonít be paid if the fund goes over budget?


1. They very well may reduce the benefits if need exceeds available funds and the money can't be found elsewhere.

2. The media should be outraged over the duplicity of this administration.

3. Depending on the circumstances they may not be paid what they are being paid now if the need is over projection and funds are not available and cannot be reallocated from another area.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


31 posted 05-10-2009 11:35 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
he isn't saving any money, despite the attempt at portraying that he is.


You keep saying this Denise, but so far the only evidence youíve offered is that ďyou believe thatís what he intendedĒ. I think youíre wrong, can you supply some evidence to back up your claim.

Oh, and thanks for trying to avoid the original issues with your answers.

The administration may invade Canada, introduce mandatory euthanasia for anyone over 25 and they may sell Manhattan to the Iranians. That doesnít mean theyíre planning to do any of them.

Feel free to believe whatever you like regardless of the evidence Denise, as long as youíre happy, thatís the main thing.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


32 posted 05-10-2009 04:13 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

His releasing to the press that he was making budget cuts just after congress passed their budget plan, when he in fact was not using their plan as the jump off point, as people would naturally assume, but rather his original plan that already had these cuts in them, means that he was being deceitful with the American people, because he in fact was not introducing any new budget cuts, and his budget is more costly than the one passed by congress. I think that shows his 'intent' very clearly. Do you have evidence to the contrary for my consideration?

People who do things without planning ahead are poor administrators, don't you think?

The proof will be in the pudding, Grinch.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


33 posted 05-10-2009 04:18 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I think that shows his 'intent' very clearly.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


34 posted 05-10-2009 05:41 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Do you have evidence to the contrary for my consideration?


Why confuse the issue with evidence Denise Ė you seem to be doing pretty well so far without any.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


35 posted 05-10-2009 08:26 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

What was the point, or his intent, in coming forward to the press with a list of  budget cuts right after congress passed their version and when his new proposal was higher than theirs and was just a repackaging of his original proposal?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


36 posted 05-11-2009 12:11 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

          Then it would be incumbent on you to define conditions in which it's possible for a President to be fiscally responsible in this economic climate, wouldn't you say?  Otherwise your accusations of fiscal irresponsibility are indistinguishable from doing the best that anybody can do in a difficult situation, and become meaningless.  That would mean that you could make whatever criticism you wanted, but that it would be essentially white noise.

     So, if you're going to take the discussion further, you'll need to say what you think a responsible economic course may be, and defend it.  Take a position.  

     If you want to balance the budget (I do), tell me how you think it should be done that's different than what Obama's doing.  He's been reasonably clear about the rationale on his policy.  Stimulate the economy by putting money into the lower end of it, where the people will put it back in.  Support it where the failure of the larger institutions will drag down the macroeconomic structures that keep the Capital flowing smoothly:  Put the money where your mouth is, essentially.

     What's yours?  And why do you believe it more effective that his?

     Thank you for the reference to the Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau article.  I thought that it was well written.  I don't have to agree with it to see that it was an attempt at good writing, and I really, really appreciate that.

     I'd be curious to know what percentage of the budget growth and spending growth (I don't know, and I haven't checked yet) are a result of trying to put the cost of the wars in the budget and on the books this time around, rather than out of the budget and off the books as supplements as the practice was during the Bush administration.  It may be that the increase is not only apparent, but real as well; it may be that some portion of the increase may be more apparent than real.  I simply don't know.

     Nor do I know for sure what the results of failing to bail out the larger companies would have been.  I do know that both the Bush and the Obama folks seemed to have agreed that this was necessary, since the Bush administration worked at pushing the legislation through against congressional objections at the time.  This is something that I tend to think that both right and left have some level of agreement about, whatever their current posturing may be.  I'd like to know your thoughts on this, if you have any.

     Thanks for your attention here.

     Sincerely,

Bob Kaven

Best to the Grandkids and happy mothers' day to you.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


37 posted 05-11-2009 03:14 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I'm just wondering when we'll take into account the business of burying the inherited debt of our ...f

nevermind

I think this has gone on long enough. And I agree that I don't agree with every Obama-step, but I said that from the beginning.

He's gonna have to do much more unenviable work, and this?

It's mere distraction in comparison to the hard line needs of our country. (And no, I won't elucidate--but feel free to reference me--later--when it happens.)

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


38 posted 05-11-2009 04:34 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Thanks, Bob, I had a very nice Mother's Day.

My position on the economy is less government interference the better. And I believe that free enterprise and hard work grows the economy, trickle down, not trickle up. I don't think socialism has a track record of producing healthy, vibrant economies.

Karen, I don't think we make things better by compounding inherited debt with even more debt.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


39 posted 05-11-2009 10:41 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Denise,

          That's a fair enough statement of position, Denise, and I appreciate it.

     You should be aware, however, that this puts you firmly in the pro-slavery camp.  Slave owners felt that the government had no right in interfering with their property rights and their economic freedoms in the same way that you do.  It also puts you in the pro monopoly position.

     How do you feel about the rights of individual entrepreneurs to lobby the government for favorable laws, for example to be free from criminal or civil responsibility for damages that result from their actions?  This would be government interference in business and the economic system, not to mention the everyday civil rights of the population.  This seems to me to be favoring one part of the population over other parts, which the constitution seems to frown on under the equal protection section.

     Your simple description doesn't seem to cover these bases, while you do seem to require President Obama to do so or be scolded sharply.  Yet the values that you expect him to follow are not clear in these cases either, following as they do from the economic case you do stipulate.

     While I believe that support of slavery is outlandish, I believe that some degree of government intervention is necessary in the private sector.  My belief is at one with my supposition here.  

     I'm the last person to claim that a person and his beliefs must always have a direct and logical connection.  But I do believe that it's useful to know where there is a disconnect and to acknowledge that it is there.  I for example am anti-death penalty, while there are many people that I believe certainly deserve it.  There's a logical disconnect for you of my own.  My temporary fix is that I believe I lack necessary compassion for everybody.  I am also uncertain that lets me off the hook.

     What about your belief in government non-interference in at least matters of economics and the business of slavery, however?  What about some of these other issues here?  

     None of which diminish your criticism of President Obama in the least, by the way.  I am obligated to pay somewhat more attention to what you say because I disagree with you, lest I miss something of import.  This is most distressing, I must say.  You catch me here at a place where I like myself not very well at all.

Sincerely,

Bob Kaven

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


40 posted 05-11-2009 10:57 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I think all conservatives, libertarians, and objectivists should go to the place where there is currently the least amount of government interference in the economy.

Somalia.



Now if ya'll don't mind -- this thread has reminded me of one thing my dear departed daddy used to tell me -- if you jump in the mud with the pigs there is only one certain result -- you get dirty -- and the pig likes it -- therefore -- I'm just gonna shake off my boots now.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


41 posted 05-12-2009 12:04 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Denise said: My position on the economy is less government interference the better.

I'm unclear why anyone would confuse less government interference with no interference?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


42 posted 05-12-2009 04:10 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I sort of agree Denise, a smaller Government is the ideal, but only to a point and only when the circumstances allow. I just think that right now the only way out of this mess is through Government intervention, that leaving things to take their normal course isnít an option.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


43 posted 05-12-2009 06:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

WASHINGTON (AP) ó President Obama says police officers deserve respect and support because as the economy worsens, crime rises.

The  same man who said days earlier that fewer police deaths were expected....that's Obama.


...and I am off. See you in a week or so.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


44 posted 05-12-2009 07:40 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

He probably said it because all the evidence suggests that itís true Mike.

The average in the 1970ís was 218 officer deaths per year, in the 1980ís it had fallen to an average of 187 and by the 1990ís it had fallen even further to 152.

Granted the figures for the present decade are up on average but thatís largely due to the single highest incidence of police fatalities, which occurred on September 11th 2001.

However 2008 had the lowest number of deaths since 1960 with 133, which suggests that the downward trend is continuing.

quote:
fewer police deaths were expected


I think thatís a reasonable conclusion if you study the figures.

Btw, Iíve had a quick look at the comparison of reported crime rates each year and there doesnít seem to be a correlation between an increase in crime rates and the number of police fatalities. Thatís probably due to the types of crimes being committed; you could have a drastic increase in petty theft for instance, which wouldnít necessarily impact on police fatalities. Iíll crunch the numbers and let you know if any pattern emerges.
.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


45 posted 05-12-2009 10:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You'll be in my thoughts and prayers that all goes well and that you are back here as soon as possible, fit as a fiddle, Michael. (((HUGS)))

I'm not in the same camp as the slave owners, Bob, because I don't view people as property, and I think the government had every right to step into that situation.

Of course the federal government has to have some involvement, or why have a federal government, afterall, but I believe that the federal government's role should be limited to what the states can't do very well individually, things like providing for the common defense, interstate infrastructure and trade,etc.  

Just as I believe that increasing debt is not the answer to solving the problems caused by inherited debt, I don't believe that government interference is the solution to problems created by government interference, Grinch. We're just going to compound the problems and the misery.

I don't know what in our discussions here causes you to be reminded of a pigsty, Reb. I just see people expressing their political views, same as always. Is it now taboo to accuse a politician of playing political games to manipulate public opinion? Gosh, I hope not. This is still America, isn't it?  

But if you are so averse to pigsties, I'll bet you are real glad that you didn't attend the Washington Correspondants Dinner last weekend. You'd have to clean the slime off of more than just your boots!
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


46 posted 05-12-2009 11:26 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Nope.

Call it pigsty remains if you will, but I had to hear that Clinton's administration "inherited" good "trickle-down" economic sense for years now.

President Obama inherited a debt that wouldn't fit on a ticker...

and now that doesn't count?

(I lied about the math. I can do math.)



sorta
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


47 posted 05-13-2009 03:08 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

          The slave owners would have agreed with you too, Denise.  They felt that slaves weren't people, neatly getting around your objection.  The folks who operated debtor's prisons, however, did think the debtors were people, simply that being in debt meant that they forfeited pretty much all of what we consider to be civil rights.

     Robert Rogers, the guy who founded Robert's Rangers during the French and Indian Wars, and on whose thinking the Army devised its Ranger Program during WWII, then and later its special forces died in Debtor's prison in England, as did any number of Americans of that era, not to mention Englishmen.  Debt Bondage was one of the ways that many White Americans got to this country.  It was limited in time from actual slavery, but the differences in civil protections were few.  This was another of the economic situations common in the history of this country.  Government interference brought that to an end.

     Government involvement is necessary in issues that you may not have mentioned.  Acid rain, for example, damages the lakes, streams and rivers of Eastern states, but has its origins in some of the coal fired industry and power generating plants of the midwest.  Run-off from mining operations in one state effect the fishing industry in other states, so a national set of standards is needed and needs to be enforced.  The actual damages done to the industry and populations of the states down-wind and downstream needs to be taken into consideration in assessing damages, otherwise there is no incentive to change the damaging behaviors, nor are the damages caused made whole.  

     This is a matter of taking care of the interests of the whole country, not those folks who can wave the largest check in front of the re-election funds of those seeking office.  There actually is a body politic, a polis that actually does have interests that need to be guarded.  Those who take care of the Capital in the country are only a part of the country.  Those interests are important, but not more important than those interests of other people who are part of the democracy.

     The form of government here is not Capitalism, it is Democracy.  Capitalism is the closest word we have to describing the economic system we use for managing our money.  It is important that we remember that we are a form of government that has adapted an economic system, and not the other way around.  The economic system is supposed to serve the Democracy.  When the Democracy starts to serve the Economic system, it has stopped being a Democracy ó which by definition, serves the people of the community ó and started to become an oligarchy.

     Alas that the first community was one of slave-holders.
Both in Athens and the United States.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


48 posted 05-13-2009 11:49 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

The implications do seem harsh out of one eye, but the other eye is taking in the logic of the percentage of funds that are not being used....or are they?

I know we didn't need a 7 million dollar town hall, which it's now nicknamed the "House of Air" because it's so vastly empty and quiet inside. The clerk got excited when I came to pay my speeding ticket.(My occasional donation to the TN Highway road fund.) She'd not seen but two people all day, her boss and me and I was in a hurry...like usual, bless her heart. If she develops a social disorder, it could be work related.

And then there was the "love child incident," involving a certain man in charge of many funds. His mistress took tens of thousands out the courthouse door. He knocked his opportunity gavel all OVER the budget books.

Hmmm...

if it ain't there to spend except for locked issues of benefits, maybe that's a benefit?

Even small towns need qualified eyes to keep a watch out for the white collars that can make the citizens see red.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


49 posted 05-13-2009 11:33 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Our form of government is not a Democracy, Bob, it is a Republic. Here is a clip that explains the various forms of government, all the way from Anarchy to Oligarchy, that I found very informative. It's a real Civics Class refresher course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&feature=player_embedded

I don't agree that our economic system  should serve our form of government, nor the government, the economic system. I view capitalism as an economic system that has a proven track record of producing growth, stability, and prosperity in a society, that has built in corrective cycles that work to regulate it, when unencumbered by overreaching government intervention, that fits hand-in-glove with our form of government.

It is socialism as an economic system that fits hand-in-glove with the oligarchy, whether it's labeled democracy, socialism, or communism, which is anathama to the spirit of freedom in the heart of the sovereign citizen. I think history shows that as an economic system socialism has a dismal track record and leads to eventual oppression.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Obama True to Form   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors